< November 24
November 26 >

November 25

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 25, 2012

File:St marys university college text block.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete as G7. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redirect caused by file rename. Cloudbound (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Multiple: Insulated glazing

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Yes, I've commented in this discussion but as it's now been open over 2 months and 10 days since the last comment. None of the redirects have been tagged for deletion, not even the five initially listed, despite requests and plenty of time to do so, and so any deletions would not be within process anyway. There is a consensus to keep at least the most common of these, but no obvious consensus about which subset this applies to and no consensus about the less common ones. Overall, I don't consider it worth the time to figure out which redirects have consensus keep and which don't, so I'm closing the whole lot as no consensus with no prejudice to a renomination that is better organised and in which the nominated redirects are explicitly tagged (by human or otherwise).
As this is an "involved" closure, anyone can undo it without penalty, however I would ask that you enunciate what benefits you consider doing so brings if you do. Thryduulf (talk)

** NOTE TO CLOSING EDITOR- PLEASE FEEL FREE TO PASS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF WHATEVER'S DECIDED ON THIS BACK TO THE NOMINATOR (User:Topbanana) IF YOU DON'T FANCY DOING IT YOURSELF **

These are a representative sample of a set of 428 (bulk-created?) redirects to this article. I would propose deleting the 84 redirects each from from quadruple, quintuple and sextuple variations on the grounds that these are extremely rarely used specialised constructions that the target article does not discuss. I would also propose removing most of the 84 redirects each from double and triple variations, retaining only those for which google shows at least one non-Wikipedia result. The remaining 20 or so unique redirects to be left as is. TB (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, the same 84 variations exist for each of 'double', 'triple', 'quadruple', 'quintuple' and 'sextuple' (so 84 x 5 = 420 redirects). The entire list can be seen here. - TB (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've seen the list. I'm not going to give my support to any proposal that doesn't list which ones from the list you are proposing to delete so that I and others can investigate which ones we agree with and which we disagree with. Thryduulf (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded there. Explicitness is good. I am more than willing to have this discussion based on the ones explicitly listed here, but not the ones listed on the other page. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Okay, no problem. - TB (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appending the full list here per requests above:

Discussion is NOT closed! Please continue to participate; this is hatted simply so that it doesn't overwhelm the rest of the RFD page.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
split into semi-arbitrary sections for ease of commenting by Thryduulf (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Double-glaze[edit]
  • All of these are harmless. Keep Double-glaze window, Double-glaze windows and Double-glaze glass as these are logical and the first two are used. Neutral about Double-glaze glasses as although it's harmless "glasses" generally doesn't mean window glass. Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Double-glazed[edit]
  • Neutral about Double-glazed glasses as it's harmless but not really that logical. Keep the rest as very logical and useful redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Double-glazers[edit]
Double-pane[edit]
Double-paned[edit]
Double paners[edit]
Double glaze[edit]
Double glazed[edit]
Double glazers[edit]
Double glaze[edit]
Double paned[edit]
Double paners[edit]
Doubleglaze[edit]
Doubleglazed[edit]
Doubleglazers[edit]
Doublepane[edit]
Doublepaned[edit]
Doublepaners[edit]
Triple-Pane[edit]
Triple-glazed[edit]
Triple-glazers[edit]
Triple-pane[edit]
Triple-paners[edit]
Triple glaze[edit]
Triple glazed[edit]
Triple glazers[edit]
Triple pane[edit]
Triple paners[edit]
Tripleglaze[edit]
Tripleglazed[edit]
Tripleglazers[edit]
Triplepane[edit]
Triplepaned[edit]
Triplepaner[edit]
Quadruple-glaze[edit]
Quadruple-glazed[edit]
Quadruple-glazers[edit]
Quadruple-pane[edit]
Quadruple-paned[edit]
Quadruple-paners[edit]
Quadruple glaze[edit]
Quadruple glazed[edit]
Quadruple glazers[edit]
Quadruple pane[edit]
Quadruple paned[edit]
Quadruple paners[edit]
Quadrupleglaze[edit]
Quadrupleglazed[edit]
Quadrupleglazers[edit]
Quadruplepane[edit]
Quadruplepaned[edit]
Quadruplepaners[edit]
Quintuple-glaze[edit]
Quintuple-glazed[edit]
Quintuple-glazers[edit]
Quintuple-pane[edit]
Quintuple-paned[edit]
Quintuple-paners[edit]
Quintuple glaze[edit]
Quintuple glazed[edit]
Quintuple glazers[edit]
Quintuple pane[edit]
Quintuple paned[edit]
Quintuple paners[edit]
Quintupleglaze[edit]
Quintupleglazed[edit]
Quintupleglazers[edit]
Quintuplepane[edit]
Quintuplepaned[edit]
Quintuplepaners[edit]
Sextuple-glaze[edit]
Sextuple-glazed[edit]
Sextuple-glazers[edit]
Sextuple-pane[edit]
Sextuple-paned[edit]
Sextuple-paners[edit]
Sextuple glaze[edit]
Sextuple glazed[edit]
Sextuple glazers[edit]
Sextuple pane[edit]
Sextuple paned[edit]
Sextuple paners[edit]
Sextupleglaze[edit]
Sextupleglazed[edit]
Sextupleglazers[edit]
Sextuplepane[edit]
Sextuplepaned[edit]
Sextuplepaners[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Future self

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 18:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the provided article, the title of this redirect doesn't make since. Nathan2055talk - contribs 18:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Non-free fair use in

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Keep. No reason for deletion given. Ruslik_Zero 18:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a deletion/discussion nomination that I take lightly. I am quite aware that this redirect is linked on many thousands of pages due to the template's previous existence at this location for a number of years. I make this nomination because my past experience has given me the impression that non-free image license tags don't get redirects, based on the movement of the general non-free template to this (old) location and the conversion of Template:Fairusein to a soft redirect rather than leaving it as a real redirect. I realize that under normal circumstances, it would be a no-brainer to leave the redirect in place, but I feel that this may be a special case. Obviously, with thousands of transclusions using this redirect title, a bot would be needed to change all of the transclusions to point to the new location. Due to the fact that this title has existed for a number of years, a soft redirect rather than outright deletion may be advisable, but ultimately the community needs to decide what to do with this redirect. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Wish there were some intermediate solution, to still call to discussion while still redirecting, but that would require a change to the way MediaWiki processes redirects.--Lexein (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - add the deletion tag underneath the redirect (rather than above it) and all is well. This has been done. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I must be missing something. ((Non-free fair use in)) doesn't seem to add functionality over ((Non-free fair use)). What's the special use case? Habit? Javascript tools or widgets? --Lexein (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no added functionality. ((Non-free fair use)) used to be located at ((Non-free fair use in)), and was moved after the parameters that the "in" part represented were removed. So it's not a difference in functionality, but rather an historical name. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Lesbian kiss episodes

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Rcsprinter (warn) @ 11:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The target article was created in May 2009 and it does not appear that the redirect was looked at even once in the intervening three and a half years, before an editor whose contributions around LGBT topics has been, shall we say zealous, created it. No one looking for the article is ever going to type a search string that is longer than the actual article title, which will appear as a search result before the redirect will. Nothing links to the redirect. Nothing has ever linked to the redirect. This is the textbook case of a redirect that does not serve and cannot serve any useful purpose whatsoever. Speedy delete was declined because this search term which, again, had never been viewed before less than a month ago is "eminently plausible". No, no it is not. Buck Winston (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The difference of course being that many of those redirects involve changes in spelling from the original, i.e. "centuries" from "century". That isn't the case here and no one with a functioning brain is going to choose the plural when the singular is right there and, in the absence of this redirect, is going to select the only option that comes up. The existence of this redirect is the only thing that would induce anyone to select this redirect. Maintaining a redirect that does nothing but encourage people to make the wrong choice of two options, the other option being the article they are looking for, is stupid and a disservice to readers. Buck Winston (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that logic, Buck, is that not all people get to Wiki articles through the search. Some people will make an educated guess as to the url (www.wikipedia.com/wiki/lesbian_kiss_episodes), some people writing articles will need to make links to the page and might guess that it's a plural title. Deleting a redirect requires not that the redirect is necessary, but that the redirect makes navigating Wikipedia difficult - for example, if it's confusing. You've given to reason to delete this. Ego White Tray (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason to delete this is that it's STUPID to maintain search strings that are longer than the actual name of the target article. Someone Googling "lesbian kiss episodes" in the plural will find Lesbian kiss episode in the singular as the very first search result. This redirect serves no purpose. Buck Winston (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further to EWT's comment, the internal search is only one of many different ways that people use to navigate Wikipedia - other methods include links from other Wikipedia pages, links from external sites, links from search engines, external Wikipedia search tools, external search engines, direct URL entry (I use this a lot), the url bar search shortcut feature in Firefox (this is the way I most commonly find pages on WP. Maybe other browsers offer similar too), etc. Of these methods, only the internal search box is guaranteed to offer the suggested articles drop-down and even then only for those people using a graphical browser with javascript enabled; of the other methods of searching some dedicated external tools may offer this or similar funcionality, but not all of them and none of the others do. Also, many people with a perfectly functioning brain will select the pulural if they don't know the article is at the singular title (given the content, either is plausible) and suggesting that a plural form would only be visited by people with significantly lower than average intelligence is getting very close to personal attack territory. Thryduulf (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Find me a single search method by which entering lesbian kiss episodes doesn't bring up the article as the first result. And I'm not the one suggesting that readers are stupid. The people arguing to keep the redirect are, suggesting that readers are too dumb to choose between the singular and the plural. Buck Winston (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, why force people to use view search results when we know exactly what they are looking for and can seemlessly take them there? What benefit would be brought by deleting the redirect? Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Search strings that are LONGER THAN THE TARGET are NOT PLAUSIBLE. That is because anyone searching for them will STOP WHEN THE THING THEY ARE SEARCHING FOR APPEARS. Seriously, what is wrong with you people? Search strings that are LONGER THAN THE TARGET are NOT NEEDED. Buck Winston (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also it's already been pointed out to you the search box is not the only way people look up articles on Wikipedia. Even if every one did, not every one has JavaScript, and even if everyone did we don't force our readers to be on the lookout for their article to appear in a dropdown box, we redirect them to the article their looking for. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the TWO RESULTS that appear when one types lesbian ki in the search box are such a trial for a reader to slog through and the ONE RESULT that remains after hitting lesbian kis is completely confusing. How can we expect anyone to figure it out? And I'll nominate what I like so unless you're the Wikipedia police don't tell me not to. Buck Winston (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While you are generally free to nominate what you like, nominating things that have no chance of being deleted (such as obvious redirects from plurals, which have had consensus as useful redirects since at least 2003) is pointless and in some circumstances, especially if done repeatedly, is seen as disruptive. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
More